Indeed, our argument here is that in the Org's country of origin, the US, AMVs are "fair use" and a court has already ruled that backing up media is not illegal.

As far as Japan goes, the possession rule which covers backups is not likely to cause you issues if you purchase the original source and back it up, which is what we advocate here anyhow. There is no way to find you if you are buying DVDs and ripping them to your harddrive. They would find you by tracking your downloads, which if you are buying source, you don't have downloads. Most of us don't even keep the sources ripped after we finish videos. So, even releasing AMVs, which arguably still fall under fair use (although I'd rather not test it), if it leads back to your place of residence, the Japanese law covers full back-up copies. Not scattered clips or finalised AMVs. Because AMVs cannot be used as a substitute for the original the way back up copies can, the law does not seem to apply to them. However, this is discussing the video. I think we have a much harder road to hoe when it comes to the music portion, because that is not often altered, and may be used as a substitute (although realistically, as Kevmaster said in the landscape thread, this is batshit insane, and no one downloads AMVs as a substitute for music. They just go download the music).

Strong legal arguments can be made that AMVs fit the four balance test, and are fundamentally transformative, as opposed to just derivative. Editing imports a significant amount of new value into the work, the nature of the work does not preclude criticism or commentary, and there is no use of the transformative for profit.

Strong legal arguments can be made that AMVs fit the four balance test, and are fundamentally transformative, as opposed to just derivative. Editing imports a significant amount of new value into the work, the nature of the work does not preclude criticism or commentary, and there is no use of the transformative for profit.

Basically, even though you could possibly make an argument for the video being Fair Use, the same can not be said for the musical element. It doesn't matter if AMV's aren't intended to be a replacement for buying music - unless you are using your own music or have the author's explicit permission to use it, you are still violating the original author's exclusive right to sell, distribute, copy, transfer, reproduce, etc. An AMV creator may not end up meeting the requirements to be criminally liable, but that won't stop the IP holders from suing the pants off of you if they feel like it, so please stop promoting the myth that AMV's are established as Fair Use, or that their creation is a clear cut example of such.

aesling wrote:Basically, even though you could possibly make an argument for the video being Fair Use, the same can not be said for the musical element. It doesn't matter if AMV's aren't intended to be a replacement for buying music - unless you are using your own music or have the author's explicit permission to use it, you are still violating the original author's exclusive right to sell, distribute, copy, transfer, reproduce, etc. An AMV creator may not end up meeting the requirements to be criminally liable, but that won't stop the IP holders from suing the pants off of you if they feel like it, so please stop promoting the myth that AMV's are established as Fair Use, or that their creation is a clear cut example of such.

I've already addressed how the transformative nature applies to even unaltered music elsewhere as well, and if you won't type up yours again, I won't type up mine. Suffice it to say, in our system, you can sue for anything at any time, doesn't mean the lawsuit will stand up. It does mean that the IP holder could very well sue because they know I won't have the money to fight them. This usually leads to a settlement out of court which doesn't affect precedent at all.

So please stop conflating the fact that we have limited funding to fight for our interpretation of Fair Use with the idea that Fair Use doesn't apply. That's the myth.

I didn't say it didn't apply, I said it was likely a difficult argument. As you point out, if precedent hasn't been established either way, it is difficult to definitively state that AMV's ARE Fair Use as well.

aesling wrote:I didn't say it didn't apply, I said it was likely a difficult argument. As you point out, if precedent hasn't been established either way, it is difficult to definitively state that AMV's ARE Fair Use as well.

I believe precedent has been established. AMVs are simply slightly new way of addressing a very old human activity. You say probably not, but say are. Definitively. That's my interpretation, and I am going to continue to play that to the hilt. To do otherwise is to leave open the door that I ever, possibly knowingly violated copyright. And that is very, very dangerous. And I deny it. Especially in a public forum like this.